Well here we are one year later! Welcome back to the NCAA.com Men's Final Four Blog.

It's Tuesday at 8:00 p.m. and I am still in Indianapolis, but my head is in Detroit already. I am all packed and ready to drive up to Detroit with two coworkers in the morning and I am really excited! The 2009 NCAA Men's Final Four is guaranteed to be a great one and I'll make sure all of the readers at home feel like they are there with  the in-depth coverage I'll provide.

Ok, so I will get it out of the way now and then you will not hear it from me again. J Yes, I am a UConn grad, but this blog will be neutral and I will definitely be giving all of the readers an inside glimpse to all four teams at the NCAA Final Four, as well as the many many activities planned in Detroit over the next few days.

Not much to report now other than I am ready to go!

Let's take a look at some quick facts on each team.

Michigan State

Final Four History: 7th appearance (1957, 1979*, 1999, 2000*,

2001, 2005, 2009)

Distance Traveled to Detroit: 90 miles

Who they beat to get here: Robert Morris, USC, Kansas, Louisville

North Carolina

Final Four History: 18^th appearance (1946, 1957*, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1972, 1977, 1981,

1982*, 1991, 1993*, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2005*, 2008, 2009)

Distance Traveled to Detroit: 696 miles

Who they beat to get here: Radford, LSU, Gonzaga, Oklahoma

UConn

Final Four History: 3^rd appearance (1999*, 2004*, 2009)

Distance Traveled to Detroit: 745 miles

Who they beat to get here: Chattanooga, Texas A&M, Purdue, Missouri

Villanova

Final Four History: 2^nd appearance (1985*, 2009)

Distance Traveled to Detroit: 573 miles

Who they beat to get here: American, UCLA, Duke, Pittsburgh

 *= National Champions

I was able to get some thoughts from a few of the committee members after the bracket was finalized..

Dave Revsine - Big Ten Network

"I was surprised by how orderly it is," said Revsine.  "I came in with this preconception that it would be this smoke filled room without the smoke and that people would be lobbying a lot. Everything is very logical and follows a certain process.  It took the mystery out of it.  It reinforces your belief in the process."

Greg Anthony - CBS Sports

"What stood out for me is that in going through the process you don't have a clue about how many teams are getting in from a perspective conference," Anthony said.  "That was a big thing, because I thought coming in that conferences that were thought to be the stronger conferences would get more teams in. But what we did was just set out to identify the best teams.  The process was very genuine and done with a lot of thoroughness."

I was also able to get some thoughts from David Worlock, who helped stage this event.

David Worlock - Associate Director of the Division I Men's Basketball Championship

"I hope we dispelled some myths or preconceived notions that people had," said Worlock.  "I hope people walked out of here with a different understanding of the entire process, not just the selecting, but as well as the seeding.  Our goal of this  is to expose what the committee does every year and make it more transparent and not be secretive about anything they are doing."

Glendale

1. 1. Oklahoma (KC)
2. 2. Memphis (KC)
3. 3. Wake Forest (Miami)
4. 4. UCLA (Portland)
5. 5. Florida State (Portland)
6. 6. Utah (Miami)
7. 7. Texas (KC)
8. 8. West Virginia (KC)
9. 9. Florida (KC)
10. 10. Cincinnati (KC)
11. 11. Arizona (Miami)
12. 12. Wisconsin (Portland)
13. 13. Nevada (Portland)
14. 14. Portland State (Miami)
15. 15. Morgan State (KC)
16. 16. Pacific (KC)

Memphis

1. 1. UNC (Greensboro)
2. 2. Michigan State (Dayton)
3. 3. Villanova (Minneapolis)
4. 4. Kansas (Boise)
5. 5. Arizona State (Boise)
6. 6. Dayton (Minneapolis)
7. 7. Cal (Dayton)
8. 8. Syracuse (Greensboro)
9. 9. UNLV (Greensboro)
10. 10. Boston College (Dayton)
11. 11. Oklahoma State (Minneapolis)
12. 12. Stephen F. Austin (Boise)
13. 13. College of Charleston (Boise)
14. 14. Boston U (Minneapolis)
15. 15. Morehead State (Dayton)
16. 16. Alabama State (Greensboro)

Indianapolis

1. 1. Pitt (Dayton)
2. 2. Clemson (Greensboro)
3. 3. Louisville (Minneapolis)
4. 4. Xavier (Portland)
5. 5. Illinois (Portland)
6. 6. Ohio State (Minneapolis)
7. 7. Washington (Greensboro)
8. 8. Tennessee (Dayton)
9. 9. Miami (Dayton)
10. 10. Kentucky (Greensboro)
11. 11. Western Kentucky (Minneapolis)
12. 12. Creighton (Portland)
13. 13. Fairfield (Portland)
14. 14. Robert Morris (Minneapolis)
15. 15. Belmont (Greensboro)
16. 16. Ball State/IUPUI (Dayton)

Boston

1. 1. UConn (Philly)
2. 2. Duke (Philly)
3. 3. Marquette (Miami)
4. 4. Butler (Boise)
5. 5. Missouri (Boise)
6. 6. Purdue (Miami)
7. 7. Gonzaga (Philly)
8. 8. Minnesota (Philly)
9. 9. BYU (Philly)
10. 10 LSU (Philly)
11. 11. USC (Miami)
12. 12. Virginia Tech (Boise)
13. 13. American (Boise)
14. 14. Cornell (Miami)
15. 15. Old Dominion (Philly)
16. 16. UNC Asheville (Philly)

Worlock tells everyone to remember that when they send a one seed to a pod region, they are bringing with them the 16 seed, the 8 and the 9 seed. The committee will place the four "number 1 seed" teams seeded 1 through 4 in each of the four regions, then determine the Final Four semifinals pairings, making best effort to pair the top No. 1 seed's region against the fourth No. 1 seed's region and the second No. 1 seed's region against the third No. 1 seed's region.

The committee will then place the No. 2 seeds in each region in true seed list order.  The same with the 3 and 4 seeds.  After the four seed lines have been assigned, determine the relative strengths of the regions by adding the "true seed" numbers in each region to determine if any severe numerical imbalance exists.

The final teams have been chosen for the at-large teams and the rankings are complete 1-65.  Here are the final rankings before the bracketing process takes place:

1. 1. UNC
2. 2. Pitt
3. 3. UConn
4. 4. Oklahoma
5. 5. Clemson
6. 6. Michigan State
7. 7. Duke
8. 8. Memphis
9. 9.Villanova
10. 10. Wake Forest
11. 11. Kansas
12. 12. Louisville
13. 13. Marquette
14. 14. UCLA
15. 15. Butler
16. 16. Xavier
17. 17. Missouri
18. 18. Illinois
19. 19. Florida State
20. 20. Purdue
21. 21. Arizona State
22. 22. Ohio State
23. 23. Dayton
24. 24. Utah
25. 25. Washington
26. 26. Texas
27. 27. Syracuse
28. 28. Cal
29. 29. Gonzaga
30. 30. Minnesota
31. 31. Tennessee
32. 32. West Virginia
33. 33. UNLV
34. 34. BYU
35. 35. Cincinnati
36. 36. Boston College
37. 37. Florida
38. 38. Miami
39. 39. Arizona
40. 40. LSU
41. 41. Oklahoma State
42. 42. Virginia Tech
43. 43. Kentucky
44. 44. USC
45. 45. Western Kentucky
46. 46. Wisconsin
47. 47. Creighton
48. 48. Stephen F. Austin
49. 49. Nevada
50. 50. American
51. 51. Fairfield
52. 52. College of Charleston
53. 53. Robert Morris
54. 54. Cornell
55. 55. Boston U
56. 56. Portland State
57. 57. Morehead State
58. 58. Belmont
59. 59. Old Dominion
60. 60. Morgan State
61. 61. Pacific
62. 62. UNC Asheville
63. 63. Alabama State
64. 64. Ball State
65. 65. IUPUI

More automatic qualifiers and at-large selections have been decided.  The automatic qualifiers are:

BYU

Arizona State

Alabama State

Nevada

UNC

Stephen F. Austin

Tennessee

The new at-large teams are:

Utah

Purdue

Texas

Minnesota

West Virginia

Boston College

Kentucky

Virginia Tech

Cincinnati

UNLV

Wisconsin

That means 30 of the 31 automatic qualifiers are filled up and 28 of the 34 at large teams.

There is a bit of a lull as the members research some more at-large teams. So this is a good opportunity to discuss the always controversial Ratings Percentage Index (RPI). Associate Director of Statistics, Gary K. Johnson, sends a letter out to every committee member explaining how the RPI is calculated and how it should be used. His main assessment is that the RPI should be used as an additional evaluation tool. It cannot take into account subjective concepts and therefore should only be a small part of the selection process. Here is the exact letter he sent out to each committee member this year. RPI Letter